Norway also outsource their nasty mining procedures elsewhere, like what they did (and still do) in countries like Brazil. We had here also a plant that made pulp from trees, built and ran by Norwegians (Borregaard.) The stink was unbearable and the factory smelled like rotten eggs in a radius of 20 km (approximately 12.5 miles.)
I agree with Slavoj here, I know a lot of online Right Wingers, and not everyone of them have a lot of intelligence if we are to frame it nicely. Au contraire though, there is hardly an intelligent Left winger either these days. I miss the days when people would argue in civil manners about solutions to problems, and the solution on both sides are generally, throw more money at it, and the problem with that is generally what money, and where do we get it, the left screams taxes, the right screams not on my watch in retort, and we're still left with the problem on how to source the money to solve the problem in the first place. Then when the problem gets too big and we're forced to solve it, we print the money, tell nobody about it, the work gets done, and now we've stolen money from everyone by devaluing the currency. Problems are best solved with careful considerations, and in the past when income tax was supposed to be only temporary at least in the states, it was 1% of the income, and I as the right wing, tax is theft, abortion is murder and CO2 is plant food, and I like to enjoy some nice plant matter served next to my animal matter on my plate, type of person, I must say, that I'd be fine with paying 1% tax, but I'd also say that women shouldn't have the need to work, and I'd also say that those who join the military shouldn't pay income tax. I'm not the faithful kind of guy, but there's still passages in the Bible I hold dear to my heart such as Deuteronomy 20. The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may begin to live in it. Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.” Then the officers shall add, “Is anyone afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his fellow soldiers will not become disheartened too.” When the officers have finished speaking to the army, they shall appoint commanders over it. Because I do not believe that serving should be forced, however I do believe it to be a duty, I say that every person has a duty onto himself to protect that which he deems important to himself, but I also deem it a duty for an individual to do his best to serve his own interests. Because if you're not out there to make your life better, no one else will do it either. You want there to be parks for the kids to be able to run around in? You want the nature to be clean, do whatever it takes to make it a reality yourself, don't expect everyone else to just follow your words and do it for you. If you want a nice wooden cottage in the middle of the forest, you better build it yourself, so that you can feel the comfort in that you accomplished something. Because no matter what it is, it feels better if you've put in the effort to make the change turn into reality. I want people to be able to lead good lives, but I also want people to put in some effort into making their good lives a reality, whining about it doesn't help, my body is sick, and dying, and no one in Africa cares about me, and neither do I care if they care about me or not, it doesn't matter, they can care, they can not care, matters little. I care that my body is in an unsalvageable state, it's in what we'd call disrepair, but it is not the fact that I'm sick or dying, that bothers me, no, those are just facts, the things that bothers me, are the limitations that come alongside them, breathing difficulty, fatigue, pain, etc. But I do not go tell others, oh non my body it is so bad, please would you help me, no, I have no reason to do that, it doesn't help at all, if you have let's say a medical problem, sure seeking a professional about it, is a good idea, but the doctor can't just give you a pill to treat the problem. Reality doesn't just work like that, you have to take the pill yourself. If you're physically weak, you'll have to train up your strength, you can't ask someone else to train and expect that you'd get the gains of said training. Without effort no reward, and I'm talking about all forms of reward, physical, spiritual, mental, etc. Be it in an individual sense or as a communal sense. And I'm horribly sorry if this load of text felt overbearing and drawn out, but it's late, and I'm tired.
methane is 20X worse than carbon dioxide. there are literally places in russia that explode out of the dirt after some years of forming a hill. it is pressure from methane building up.
Authoritarianism is bad when applying to deciding if certain groups of people deserve rights. Authoritarianism is necessary when it comes to the survival of the species and the planet. The problem is that fascists believe that denying gays and non-whites rights IS necessary for the survival of the species. We have to do a better job of teaching people what is and is not reality.
Fascists go on the natural order of man/woman, so yeah being gay is not inherently natural in man as we are a species that pro creates and replicates like most of the natural world and even bacteria and virus's themselves. But this is a hard truth liberals can't swallow and understand. Stalin didn't allow it either. Also Fascism is not Nazism if you care to read into it then spout rubbish. Mussolini was a socialist as well when it came to economics and was rather a fan of Islam and some Arab states, yet he's apparently a racist??. He is racial aware yes? but not a racist. You probably have never even read Marx. The nationalistic inputs of fascism is not strictly white either at all. Iran for example is a very nationalist Arab state with fascistic elements. You can have black nationalism as well. But it most come from a homogenous homeland. For example the native population of Europe is white. People feel more comfortable among their own and have a infinity with their homeland, maybe not soo much for white liberals in the west as they have been brainwashed by globalism and diversity. Multi Cultural societies never work, just look at the last 100 years and even go back further to the Romans. Mans default self in a decaying society is Tribal. I come to Zizek for his critiques on capitalism but everything else is very suspect and he's too materialistic for my tastes..he's a liberal at heart that can't admit it.
@@that8858 agree. Centrist lefties and rights are deluded. Conservatives and liberal left are subservient to liberal democracy and capitol . They are atomized individuals that are nothing more but docile fodder to the system. Reminds me of the 50 billion chickens that are killed a year in the name of progress and consumption that are forced fed, and artificially prompt up before their slaughter. I mean I think zizek looks as if he’s had enough chicken nuggets 🤣
I agree that fascism is bad, however, I find it ironic that you find an issue with just fascism. Want to talk a bit about Marxism? The doctrine that killed 100 million people over the last century.
I feel like a better title would be "Why a Republic is not enough" because what Zizek is talking about here is an issue of polarizing elected officials and an underrepresented spectrum of political thought. I think he words it kind of poorly, as he refers to the system as Democracy and tries to explain that the choice between the two candidates "cannot have compromise", except not in the sense of both candidates finding common ground, but rather through the very existence of a binary and greatly differing choice. In other words, he's trying to say that a system that allows elections like this to take place, where both choices are polarizing, is not him saying that "Democracy is not enough", but rather singular Republics such as the United States is not Democratic enough because ultimately the people themselves, as in ALL peoples, cannot decide on particular points of policy both locally and on a global scale, and instead must refer to elected individuals within their own nations, which in turn can and will make decisions with only their own nation in mind.
I think what Zizek is calling for is type of modern, secular Catholic church. The church did exactly that, but for the medieval age and it's structures.
You didn´t listen. Rich people already buy in New Zealand. The new holy land from which on to take the left overs of today´s world. "Secular church is an oxymoron".
@Joseph Norm I'll be honest with you, I believe something like that is what the future holds. The question will be if a new ideology/religion will need to rise or if the existent ones will be able to reform themselves.
@@hififlipper Of course it is an oxymoron... if you don't read it metaphorically. As I said I was talking about the structure which zizek is talking about.
I am amazed at how people seem to be lost for words here. The word that Zizek and you guys are looking for is "world government". I am personally an advocate for a world government but unlike what Zizek thinks is that it should not be authoritarian, in what I presume he thinks of in slightly bad connotation. We can have a democratic world government with federalised system with each states or localities having large degree of flexibility, while operating under the figurative umbrella of the central government. If districts can have autonomy under municipalities or cities. If counties under provinces can do this too. If states can do this under the nation states. Then there is no reason that the principle of subdivision with localised autonomy cannot be upscaled to the global level. Countries operate autonomously but under the behest of the world government. Now of course some people may feel skeptical of this set up (illuminati, NWO, blah, blah), but we can of course take baby steps and start with a confederate type of organisation like that of the EU or Switzerland. Like, countries still has 70% of their existing power and autonomy still being exercised, but the supranational entity would have to act upon the collective will of the member states especially on issues that transcend borders.
a simple majority democracy has this problem of one party has to win over another; I liked the original idea of Senate - win by 2/3rd or 3/4th of votes; on which case you have to bring some folks from the other side in, trying to build a consensus; the idea that a majority only can rule over the minority is a major issue with democracy
Different strata of different democratic processes that have specif overrides of power over each other. Like a city government, county government, regional government, and global government. Where local government can override on issues of unsustainable development practices so as to make them impossible anywhere (which depends on the city levels of government being small enough that the voters can see these issues on a personal level and in a way that WILL affect them, like building a coal power plant a mile away from a small town where they will feel the affects of significantly reduced air quality. The smallest regions should be small enough that no one can escape the fact that unsustainability will hurt them directly.) I am a communist and do think the only way out of global warming is a authoritarian government whose only goal is to preserve and revive the environment through sustainable practices. The changes required to survive global warming will offend most people and most people will hate it, but most people aren't going to make that change and must be forced to do it.
@@MrCrunch808 all these layers ultimately end up in the hands of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments, not going thru' any democratic process, bringing their own agenda without any accountability
I live in northern ireland and I can tell you, you don't want this. You will never form government if two parties are too far apart on a particular issue. Perhaps we can have a sort of fusion, if there is no consensus that _would_ result in a collapse of parliament, then a referendum is automatically declared. Not the majority seat party, a popular referendum. Because that frees it from the issue of gerrymandering. But this kind of exceptional policy is not something that would be achieved by a consensus system as you have described, there are too many bad actors
Parenti remarked about the "pre-end" times in reference to a cartoon in the New Yorker magazine where they were joking that during this period the greatest wealth transfer would take place. We are in it right now. No one sees it but a few. Climate calamity is upon us right now. It has been happening in slow motion for a decade or more. If you are not ready for it, you'll regret it.
I agree with his takes but, we should not fall to so low´s like Authoritarianism(dictator like). Good Democracy/Communism is hard to implement but when done right it serves every body, never stop trying! Stupid decisions can backfire and destroy all progress.
@@herbertherbertic6223 true ! Ecology is on the path of infirmity and there is nothing we can do against this. We could ~ Buy we don't decide to do so .•°
I read that in some cases the emissions released by melting permafrost can be 10 times less than previous expectations. This was from a study in Sweden done with a collaboration of universities.
He's Hegelian lol. Schopenhauer hates Hegel. And Schopenhauer pretty much misunderstood Kantian metaphysics, he's a Kantian formalist with Buddhist mysticism. But yeah, Schopenhauer represents pessimism, and even that is superceded by Nietzsche's love for life or vitalism. Schopenhauer who hates life actually secretly yearn for life and attention (he literally tried to compete with Hegel for number of students and followers). He was basically the emo of philosophers. Zizek's pessimism is social, not metaphysical. I hope I'm sufficiently annoying.
NO. What gives any man rightful authority to make demands upon another under threat of violence? There is no exemption from basic morality. Governments cannot morally do anything that you cannot. So, are you ready to come tell me personally, at gunpoint, what I need to do to save the environment? If not, how dare you advocate someone else do it?
it's called a social compact, and since people give their consent to form a society, they also give their consent to be bound to its decisions. This is a CONTRACT among people who do things and are expected to do things since they have agreed in advance to perform accordingly. You can't agree today and then say no tomorrow. It's not how it works. Since many people think to the contrary is why they have a hard time reasoning or understanding these issues. If people agree to be bound by democratic decisions, they can't claim "violence of enforcement" later if they don't like the decisions arrived in a way they the previously agreed to accept. You likely don't know what a social compact is, but the idea has been around for three centuries. And yes, at gunpoint is how the obstinate are made to comply. You bind into an agreement, you comply or are are made to do so.
I agree, as much as the general public hates it, we need a more authoritarian state. This pandemic has proved we need it, look at how people behaved, disregarding the safety rules and putting their life and others' in danger. If China has indeed contained the pandemic and has slowed the spread, it has done it only through brute force. Police in the streets, curfews, fines for those who break the rules etc. I don't agree with most of what China does, but you can't deny that their authoritarian model has been successful in this pandemic. We need to apply the same model to ecological disasters, to stop big companies from exploiting and polluting the earth and to invest in a future longer than 4-5 electoral years.
Westerners called China's response authoritarian, and compare the American "freedom" approach, where 600k people died because we could not make people stay inside or wear a mask.
The thing china was most successfull at, was selling the authoritarian model of coping with a pandemic to western liberal states. Sure, you may compare numbers of people who died from covid in order to evaluate the models in regard of efficiancy and effectiveness. if you do that, it seems pretty obvous which one is the better model. because it would be 4.000 (china) vs. 600.000 (US). but does that mean, that the measures which were implemented in china had an significantly bigger impact on the total numbers of deaths in the year 2020 than the measures implemented in the US? no they did not. in total the percentage of people dying in china was at 1.71% of the total population. and in the US it was a percentage of 1.79% of the total population. one conclusion that could be drawn from those numbers is that in china the deatchs which were prevented by the measures occured anyways during the rest of the year. so its plainly not as simple and obvious as you put it in your comment. so every further consideration of authoritarian models is based on wrong premisses, if your grounding them on the comparison of the death numbers, as you did it.
This man is right in his analysis, but my sad opinion is, wrong in his conclusion. The ecological desasters are likely going to be the downfall of governments and civilization. People have not and will not find a consensus and rather destroy themselves over their ideologies. The world will, I am afraid, rebuild itself in a better way only long after this collapse. Because, very unfortunately, the threat we are facing is cataclistic and totally indifferent to our quarrels.
Assuming for a moment we could "save the *world" : ¹Which should be the first step ? ²What would we do then ? ³How would *it look like ? and who's gonna clean up ¿°°°
Would probably have communists utopia vibes but less radically « neutral ». Finally the only persons who will be able to do it and clean it will probably be the middle class... whats your opinion?
@@that8858 "set new ethical code" ? I wonder what that would sound like. Ideologies cannot get extincted as far as I know. They have to rott away along the centuries. Cultur cannot get renewed because it is always a matter of tradition (a backward movement like steering ahead with a look in the rearview mirror). That heritage thing , ya know ? °
What is needed is what we had with covid19 - an international coordinated efford hyper focused on one goal. Nevertheless because global warming is happening relatively slowly it gives the impression it is ok to also counteract slowly
Have you lost your mind?! The "international coordinated effort" of covid was a test run for worldwide tyranny. Environmental crisis is the pretext they'll use to dig in on global governance, and you're out here begging for it? The coordinated effort we need is from *free people* giving a damn, not from governments, like with covid.
Warfare, a civil war, is probably the only means to avert the collapse of the United States. A house divided against itself can not stand. To achieve a common belief system which is needed to face our problems (existential) may require the systematic subjugation of one side or the other. Force is a fearsome persuader. Reason is a weak force on ideologic belief. Our Civil War is a perfect example of what I am trying to articulate.
Isn't EU doing the right job regarding this issue? No one gonna argue they are democratic, but at the same time they are pressuring more and more to fight the global warming. New covid recovery plans are extremely green and I somehow think there is even more coming.
Žižek was/is/maybe a Slovenian secret military police agent, the entire country is still owned and led by former national socialist communists, no wonder he thinks democracy is hell for people like him. He doesn't understand democracy, Hegel thought him no such thing exist, or it could mean anything, since they are the ones who choose and elect local political representatives instead of ordinary people. All political parties emerged from a communist party, all leaders were communists or collaborators of the totalitarian regime, they simply play different roles and control feuds appropriate to individual party designations. Communists were also divided in sections, like farming, industry, energetic, military, after Cold War defeat, those sections became pseudo democratic political parties and nothing has changed. Žižek was always privileged, don't buy ion his dissident days stories, communist oligarchy was always behind his success. Sure he was against communism, after communism has failed. And the communist party was searching for new faces, less known communists who were not incriminated by the crimes of a former regime, but still loyal to secret military police structures running the country hidden in shadows. I can understand Žižek, it's impossible to replace all police, military, judges and public officials, all factories and companies CEO, there's not enough people and those who are innocent were left alone, dumb and poor, not capable to take power. But it's because of people like him, maybe not him personally, but he should know better, leave the country or something after it became clear they established a police state and fake democracy. Slovenia is one of the worst violator of Human right in EU, the only former Yugoslav republic convicted on international war crimes tribunal for democide, to say at least.
People will rip him for talking positively about authoritarianism, but as a leftist I've spent hours thinking about this and I can't think of another solution.
Maybe a scoeity of perfectly ethical, educated, rational people would solve it. So more moral and intellectual education programs combined with authoritarian government to step in when things seem close to destruction. I guess this is what we think we are working towards in this long rat race
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No man can escapte the corrupting natte of power. Only the biigest narsiciat can say that they should give him the power because he is “moral” “good” or “competent”. Only a fraction of the human population is capable of that and the moment those people get to power, they either become the vilain themselves or they get “killed” by the people who just wants power. People shoudlnt dabble with any power they don’t know the potential of. As quarelsome and chaotic democarcy is, it is still the best system for humanity as it pits the different ways ideas and ideology people will come up and the survival of the fittest ideas is the best way to run a society.
Your state instinct is working just fine then. In fact, so is everyone else’s. As for “the global emergency state” - yes - it’s coming, but DAVOS, the WEF, and the rest of the global states and elites will be sure to provide you, me, and everyone else, an answer. If you think things are “bad” now, you haven’t seen anything yet.
I think he means about a globally declared climate emergency and immediately tackling the destructive capitalist causes of climate breakdown before its too late. An emergency transition to an Ecological Civliisation / SolarPunk future is the only thing that can save our species now. Its whether humans are evolved & mature enough to have the spiritual reawakening / reconnection to nature to realise we are part of nature and all in this together. Not just "Consumers". 🙏🌍🌱
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
Norway also outsource their nasty mining procedures elsewhere, like what they did (and still do) in countries like Brazil. We had here also a plant that made pulp from trees, built and ran by Norwegians (Borregaard.) The stink was unbearable and the factory smelled like rotten eggs in a radius of 20 km (approximately 12.5 miles.)
"A rightwinger, but an intelligent one"
Ouch, most of the Internet
I agree with Slavoj here, I know a lot of online Right Wingers, and not everyone of them have a lot of intelligence if we are to frame it nicely. Au contraire though, there is hardly an intelligent Left winger either these days. I miss the days when people would argue in civil manners about solutions to problems, and the solution on both sides are generally, throw more money at it, and the problem with that is generally what money, and where do we get it, the left screams taxes, the right screams not on my watch in retort, and we're still left with the problem on how to source the money to solve the problem in the first place. Then when the problem gets too big and we're forced to solve it, we print the money, tell nobody about it, the work gets done, and now we've stolen money from everyone by devaluing the currency.
Problems are best solved with careful considerations, and in the past when income tax was supposed to be only temporary at least in the states, it was 1% of the income, and I as the right wing, tax is theft, abortion is murder and CO2 is plant food, and I like to enjoy some nice plant matter served next to my animal matter on my plate, type of person, I must say, that I'd be fine with paying 1% tax, but I'd also say that women shouldn't have the need to work, and I'd also say that those who join the military shouldn't pay income tax.
I'm not the faithful kind of guy, but there's still passages in the Bible I hold dear to my heart such as Deuteronomy 20.
The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may begin to live in it. Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.” Then the officers shall add, “Is anyone afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his fellow soldiers will not become disheartened too.” When the officers have finished speaking to the army, they shall appoint commanders over it.
Because I do not believe that serving should be forced, however I do believe it to be a duty, I say that every person has a duty onto himself to protect that which he deems important to himself, but I also deem it a duty for an individual to do his best to serve his own interests.
Because if you're not out there to make your life better, no one else will do it either.
You want there to be parks for the kids to be able to run around in? You want the nature to be clean, do whatever it takes to make it a reality yourself, don't expect everyone else to just follow your words and do it for you. If you want a nice wooden cottage in the middle of the forest, you better build it yourself, so that you can feel the comfort in that you accomplished something. Because no matter what it is, it feels better if you've put in the effort to make the change turn into reality.
I want people to be able to lead good lives, but I also want people to put in some effort into making their good lives a reality, whining about it doesn't help, my body is sick, and dying, and no one in Africa cares about me, and neither do I care if they care about me or not, it doesn't matter, they can care, they can not care, matters little.
I care that my body is in an unsalvageable state, it's in what we'd call disrepair, but it is not the fact that I'm sick or dying, that bothers me, no, those are just facts, the things that bothers me, are the limitations that come alongside them, breathing difficulty, fatigue, pain, etc.
But I do not go tell others, oh non my body it is so bad, please would you help me, no, I have no reason to do that, it doesn't help at all, if you have let's say a medical problem, sure seeking a professional about it, is a good idea, but the doctor can't just give you a pill to treat the problem. Reality doesn't just work like that, you have to take the pill yourself.
If you're physically weak, you'll have to train up your strength, you can't ask someone else to train and expect that you'd get the gains of said training.
Without effort no reward, and I'm talking about all forms of reward, physical, spiritual, mental, etc. Be it in an individual sense or as a communal sense.
And I'm horribly sorry if this load of text felt overbearing and drawn out, but it's late, and I'm tired.
methane is 20X worse than carbon dioxide. there are literally places in russia that explode out of the dirt after some years of forming a hill. it is pressure from methane building up.
Do we have web cams over there ?
I want to see live 😍 .•°
@Xemgol yeah burning millions of years worth of forest in 100 years is pretty bad
methane is the really bad one...but sheeple are too stupid to know it. We're fucked already and the rich have known this all along.
Authoritarianism is bad when applying to deciding if certain groups of people deserve rights.
Authoritarianism is necessary when it comes to the survival of the species and the planet.
The problem is that fascists believe that denying gays and non-whites rights IS necessary for the survival of the species. We have to do a better job of teaching people what is and is not reality.
Objectivly right! But what are you saying about communism?
Fascists go on the natural order of man/woman, so yeah being gay is not inherently natural in man as we are a species that pro creates and replicates like most of the natural world and even bacteria and virus's themselves. But this is a hard truth liberals can't swallow and understand. Stalin didn't allow it either. Also Fascism is not Nazism if you care to read into it then spout rubbish. Mussolini was a socialist as well when it came to economics and was rather a fan of Islam and some Arab states, yet he's apparently a racist??. He is racial aware yes? but not a racist. You probably have never even read Marx. The nationalistic inputs of fascism is not strictly white either at all. Iran for example is a very nationalist Arab state with fascistic elements. You can have black nationalism as well. But it most come from a homogenous homeland. For example the native population of Europe is white. People feel more comfortable among their own and have a infinity with their homeland, maybe not soo much for white liberals in the west as they have been brainwashed by globalism and diversity. Multi Cultural societies never work, just look at the last 100 years and even go back further to the Romans. Mans default self in a decaying society is Tribal. I come to Zizek for his critiques on capitalism but everything else is very suspect and he's too materialistic for my tastes..he's a liberal at heart that can't admit it.
@@spritualelitist665 So objective and unbiased! We must never forget all these details that biased centrists dont know
@@that8858 agree. Centrist lefties and rights are deluded. Conservatives and liberal left are subservient to liberal democracy and capitol . They are atomized individuals that are nothing more but docile fodder to the system. Reminds me of the 50 billion chickens that are killed a year in the name of progress and consumption that are forced fed, and artificially prompt up before their slaughter. I mean I think zizek looks as if he’s had enough chicken nuggets 🤣
I agree that fascism is bad, however, I find it ironic that you find an issue with just fascism. Want to talk a bit about Marxism? The doctrine that killed 100 million people over the last century.
Nice to listen to Slavoj Zizek
Yes but difficult to watch
*difficult to comprehend
Pseudo intellectual
@@epicaunleashed8764
Pseudo comment
I feel like a better title would be "Why a Republic is not enough" because what Zizek is talking about here is an issue of polarizing elected officials and an underrepresented spectrum of political thought. I think he words it kind of poorly, as he refers to the system as Democracy and tries to explain that the choice between the two candidates "cannot have compromise", except not in the sense of both candidates finding common ground, but rather through the very existence of a binary and greatly differing choice. In other words, he's trying to say that a system that allows elections like this to take place, where both choices are polarizing, is not him saying that "Democracy is not enough", but rather singular Republics such as the United States is not Democratic enough because ultimately the people themselves, as in ALL peoples, cannot decide on particular points of policy both locally and on a global scale, and instead must refer to elected individuals within their own nations, which in turn can and will make decisions with only their own nation in mind.
I think what Zizek is calling for is type of modern, secular Catholic church. The church did exactly that, but for the medieval age and it's structures.
I agree with this, too bad too many Christians today have been taken hostage by the pre-modern conceptions of the world in the two Testaments
You didn´t listen. Rich people already buy in New Zealand. The new holy land from which on to take the left overs of today´s world. "Secular church is an oxymoron".
@Joseph Norm I'll be honest with you, I believe something like that is what the future holds. The question will be if a new ideology/religion will need to rise or if the existent ones will be able to reform themselves.
@@hififlipper Of course it is an oxymoron... if you don't read it metaphorically. As I said I was talking about the structure which zizek is talking about.
I am amazed at how people seem to be lost for words here. The word that Zizek and you guys are looking for is "world government". I am personally an advocate for a world government but unlike what Zizek thinks is that it should not be authoritarian, in what I presume he thinks of in slightly bad connotation.
We can have a democratic world government with federalised system with each states or localities having large degree of flexibility, while operating under the figurative umbrella of the central government. If districts can have autonomy under municipalities or cities. If counties under provinces can do this too. If states can do this under the nation states. Then there is no reason that the principle of subdivision with localised autonomy cannot be upscaled to the global level. Countries operate autonomously but under the behest of the world government. Now of course some people may feel skeptical of this set up (illuminati, NWO, blah, blah), but we can of course take baby steps and start with a confederate type of organisation like that of the EU or Switzerland. Like, countries still has 70% of their existing power and autonomy still being exercised, but the supranational entity would have to act upon the collective will of the member states especially on issues that transcend borders.
Could the responsables post more background information please? Where is this? In which context?
He meant methane (cow farts) not carbon dioxide (what you breath out)
a simple majority democracy has this problem of one party has to win over another; I liked the original idea of Senate - win by 2/3rd or 3/4th of votes; on which case you have to bring some folks from the other side in, trying to build a consensus; the idea that a majority only can rule over the minority is a major issue with democracy
Different strata of different democratic processes that have specif overrides of power over each other. Like a city government, county government, regional government, and global government. Where local government can override on issues of unsustainable development practices so as to make them impossible anywhere (which depends on the city levels of government being small enough that the voters can see these issues on a personal level and in a way that WILL affect them, like building a coal power plant a mile away from a small town where they will feel the affects of significantly reduced air quality. The smallest regions should be small enough that no one can escape the fact that unsustainability will hurt them directly.)
I am a communist and do think the only way out of global warming is a authoritarian government whose only goal is to preserve and revive the environment through sustainable practices. The changes required to survive global warming will offend most people and most people will hate it, but most people aren't going to make that change and must be forced to do it.
@@MrCrunch808 all these layers ultimately end up in the hands of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments, not going thru' any democratic process, bringing their own agenda without any accountability
I live in northern ireland and I can tell you, you don't want this. You will never form government if two parties are too far apart on a particular issue. Perhaps we can have a sort of fusion, if there is no consensus that _would_ result in a collapse of parliament, then a referendum is automatically declared. Not the majority seat party, a popular referendum. Because that frees it from the issue of gerrymandering. But this kind of exceptional policy is not something that would be achieved by a consensus system as you have described, there are too many bad actors
Read Wage Labour and Capital
Value price and profit too
Shit book. More Mises less Marx!
@@Davi-zt5no More Cockshott less Mises
Parenti remarked about the "pre-end" times in reference to a cartoon in the New Yorker magazine where they were joking that during this period the greatest wealth transfer would take place. We are in it right now. No one sees it but a few. Climate calamity is upon us right now. It has been happening in slow motion for a decade or more. If you are not ready for it, you'll regret it.
entiendo un 80% de lo que dice, pero sin dudas lo que llego a entender es bestial, un capo el shishe
I agree with his takes but, we should not fall to so low´s like Authoritarianism(dictator like). Good Democracy/Communism is hard to implement but when done right it serves every body, never stop trying! Stupid decisions can backfire and destroy all progress.
This guy needs to stop doing so much cocaine.
Yes, thats why the 2nd amendment exists. To quote George Carlin "Its best to have a good king, and when the king is no longer good, kill him."
Ecological breakdown is not a long-term problem, it’s happening now.
What do you propose?
@@tazmiller7490 stop eating animals , hold breath -> stop emitting cO²
or buy a Ferrari and do the opposite .•°
You people are insane... there is no ecological breakdown.
@@herbertherbertic6223 true ! Ecology is on the path of infirmity and there is nothing we can do against this.
We could ~
Buy we don't decide to do so .•°
@@herbertherbertic6223 theres no summer arctic ice by 2035
I read that in some cases the emissions released by melting permafrost can be 10 times less than previous expectations. This was from a study in Sweden done with a collaboration of universities.
This man is such a schopenhauer
That is *quite* the compliment!
He's Hegelian lol. Schopenhauer hates Hegel. And Schopenhauer pretty much misunderstood Kantian metaphysics, he's a Kantian formalist with Buddhist mysticism. But yeah, Schopenhauer represents pessimism, and even that is superceded by Nietzsche's love for life or vitalism. Schopenhauer who hates life actually secretly yearn for life and attention (he literally tried to compete with Hegel for number of students and followers). He was basically the emo of philosophers. Zizek's pessimism is social, not metaphysical. I hope I'm sufficiently annoying.
Is he suggesting a global climate authority? Globalism?
This is not new.
NO. What gives any man rightful authority to make demands upon another under threat of violence? There is no exemption from basic morality. Governments cannot morally do anything that you cannot. So, are you ready to come tell me personally, at gunpoint, what I need to do to save the environment? If not, how dare you advocate someone else do it?
it's called a social compact, and since people give their consent to form a society, they also give their consent to be bound to its decisions. This is a CONTRACT among people who do things and are expected to do things since they have agreed in advance to perform accordingly. You can't agree today and then say no tomorrow. It's not how it works. Since many people think to the contrary is why they have a hard time reasoning or understanding these issues.
If people agree to be bound by democratic decisions, they can't claim "violence of enforcement" later if they don't like the decisions arrived in a way they the previously agreed to accept. You likely don't know what a social compact is, but the idea has been around for three centuries. And yes, at gunpoint is how the obstinate are made to comply. You bind into an agreement, you comply or are are made to do so.
Slavoj Zizek ✔️
China is the ultimate synthesis??😱😱
I agree, as much as the general public hates it, we need a more authoritarian state. This pandemic has proved we need it, look at how people behaved, disregarding the safety rules and putting their life and others' in danger. If China has indeed contained the pandemic and has slowed the spread, it has done it only through brute force. Police in the streets, curfews, fines for those who break the rules etc. I don't agree with most of what China does, but you can't deny that their authoritarian model has been successful in this pandemic. We need to apply the same model to ecological disasters, to stop big companies from exploiting and polluting the earth and to invest in a future longer than 4-5 electoral years.
Westerners called China's response authoritarian, and compare the American "freedom" approach, where 600k people died because we could not make people stay inside or wear a mask.
The thing china was most successfull at, was selling the authoritarian model of coping with a pandemic to western liberal states. Sure, you may compare numbers of people who died from covid in order to evaluate the models in regard of efficiancy and effectiveness. if you do that, it seems pretty obvous which one is the better model. because it would be 4.000 (china) vs. 600.000 (US). but does that mean, that the measures which were implemented in china had an significantly bigger impact on the total numbers of deaths in the year 2020 than the measures implemented in the US? no they did not. in total the percentage of people dying in china was at 1.71% of the total population. and in the US it was a percentage of 1.79% of the total population. one conclusion that could be drawn from those numbers is that in china the deatchs which were prevented by the measures occured anyways during the rest of the year. so its plainly not as simple and obvious as you put it in your comment. so every further consideration of authoritarian models is based on wrong premisses, if your grounding them on the comparison of the death numbers, as you did it.
@@dbgthimo How is China's rate 1.71% of its total population?
@@dbgthimo 1.71% of China's population is like 23.8 million people. What are you talking about?
@@CeramicShot Just read my comment and you know what i was talking about. Im not sure if i understand your question.
This man is right in his analysis, but my sad opinion is, wrong in his conclusion.
The ecological desasters are likely going to be the downfall of governments and civilization. People have not and will not find a consensus and rather destroy themselves over their ideologies.
The world will, I am afraid, rebuild itself in a better way only long after this collapse. Because, very unfortunately, the threat we are facing is cataclistic and totally indifferent to our quarrels.
Assuming for a moment we could "save the *world" :
¹Which should be the first step ?
²What would we do then ?
³How would *it look like ?
and who's gonna clean up ¿°°°
1) Extinction of humanity
2) Die
3) As it always has, just with one more species gone and the Earth bearing the footprint of humanity
4) Nature
@@gerardo49078 good suggestions .
Here's your 🍭 hehe .•°
I think a cultural revolution (not maoist style) will be needed, them we will set the new ethical code and cultural basis of humanity.
Would probably have communists utopia vibes but less radically « neutral ». Finally the only persons who will be able to do it and clean it will probably be the middle class... whats your opinion?
@@that8858 "set new ethical code" ?
I wonder what that would sound like.
Ideologies cannot get extincted as far as I know.
They have to rott away along the centuries.
Cultur cannot get renewed because it is always a matter of tradition (a backward movement like steering ahead with a look in the rearview mirror). That heritage thing , ya know ? °
Read _The Democratic Principle_ by the Italian Communist Party (and attributed to its leader at the time, Amadeo Bordiga)
Can you tell us why?
What is needed is what we had with covid19 - an international coordinated efford hyper focused on one goal. Nevertheless because global warming is happening relatively slowly it gives the impression it is ok to also counteract slowly
Have you lost your mind?! The "international coordinated effort" of covid was a test run for worldwide tyranny. Environmental crisis is the pretext they'll use to dig in on global governance, and you're out here begging for it? The coordinated effort we need is from *free people* giving a damn, not from governments, like with covid.
at least your have democracy
Warfare, a civil war, is probably the only means to avert the collapse of the United States. A house divided against itself can not stand. To achieve a common belief system which is needed to face our problems (existential) may require the systematic subjugation of one side or the other. Force is a fearsome persuader. Reason is a weak force on ideologic belief. Our Civil War is a perfect example of what I am trying to articulate.
Idk how alot of people will feel about the likely victor in that one lmao
@@chickenfishhybrid44 You do realize, that the likely Victor, in this "Civil war" will probabbly be the Far-right extremists?
Isn't EU doing the right job regarding this issue? No one gonna argue they are democratic, but at the same time they are pressuring more and more to fight the global warming. New covid recovery plans are extremely green and I somehow think there is even more coming.
monarchy is the only thing that makes sense. rulers need to be taught from kids age, otherwise its madness
Žižek was/is/maybe a Slovenian secret military police agent, the entire country is still owned and led by former national socialist communists, no wonder he thinks democracy is hell for people like him.
He doesn't understand democracy, Hegel thought him no such thing exist, or it could mean anything, since they are the ones who choose and elect local political representatives instead of ordinary people. All political parties emerged from a communist party, all leaders were communists or collaborators of the totalitarian regime, they simply play different roles and control feuds appropriate to individual party designations. Communists were also divided in sections, like farming, industry, energetic, military, after Cold War defeat, those sections became pseudo democratic political parties and nothing has changed.
Žižek was always privileged, don't buy ion his dissident days stories, communist oligarchy was always behind his success. Sure he was against communism, after communism has failed. And the communist party was searching for new faces, less known communists who were not incriminated by the crimes of a former regime, but still loyal to secret military police structures running the country hidden in shadows.
I can understand Žižek, it's impossible to replace all police, military, judges and public officials, all factories and companies CEO, there's not enough people and those who are innocent were left alone, dumb and poor, not capable to take power. But it's because of people like him, maybe not him personally, but he should know better, leave the country or something after it became clear they established a police state and fake democracy.
Slovenia is one of the worst violator of Human right in EU, the only former Yugoslav republic convicted on international war crimes tribunal for democide, to say at least.
Slovenians hate him btw
People will rip him for talking positively about authoritarianism, but as a leftist I've spent hours thinking about this and I can't think of another solution.
Maybe a scoeity of perfectly ethical, educated, rational people would solve it. So more moral and intellectual education programs combined with authoritarian government to step in when things seem close to destruction. I guess this is what we think we are working towards in this long rat race
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
No man can escapte the corrupting natte of power. Only the biigest narsiciat can say that they should give him the power because he is “moral” “good” or “competent”. Only a fraction of the human population is capable of that and the moment those people get to power, they either become the vilain themselves or they get “killed” by the people who just wants power.
People shoudlnt dabble with any power they don’t know the potential of. As quarelsome and chaotic democarcy is, it is still the best system for humanity as it pits the different ways ideas and ideology people will come up and the survival of the fittest ideas is the best way to run a society.
same, i used to be a libertarian socialist then i started understanding zizek and found out what laibach was lol
Your state instinct is working just fine then. In fact, so is everyone else’s. As for “the global emergency state” - yes - it’s coming, but DAVOS, the WEF, and the rest of the global states and elites will be sure to provide you, me, and everyone else, an answer. If you think things are “bad” now, you haven’t seen anything yet.
I think he means about a globally declared climate emergency and immediately tackling the destructive capitalist causes of climate breakdown before its too late. An emergency transition to an Ecological Civliisation / SolarPunk future is the only thing that can save our species now. Its whether humans are evolved & mature enough to have the spiritual reawakening / reconnection to nature to realise we are part of nature and all in this together. Not just "Consumers". 🙏🌍🌱